Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LASZKIEWICZ v. POLAND

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 29, Art. 29 Abs. 3, Art. 41, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 22.11.2005 - 28481/03
• EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03
• EGMR, 07.05.2013 - 28481/03

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right "to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgements (see, among many other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000-XI; and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness; it falls to the respondent State to establish that these various conditions are satisfied (see, among other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 75, ECHR 1999-V).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 24479/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see, among other authorities, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).

 
• EGMR, 30.03.1989 - 10444/83

  LAMY c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is required (see, among other authorities, Lamy v. Belgium, judgment of 30 March 1989, Series A no. 151, pp. 16-17, § 29; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 58, ECHR 1999-II; Lietzow v. Germany, no. 24479/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I).
• EGMR, 24.11.1993 - 13972/88

  IMBRIOSCIA c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  According to the Court's case-law, it follows from the wording of Article 6 - and particularly from the autonomous meaning to be given to the notion of "criminal charge" - that this provision has some application to pre-trial proceedings (see Imbrioscia v. Switzerland, judgment of 24 November 1993, Series A no. 275, p. 13, § 36).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 23541/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (wesentliche Verfahrensakten; …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  While national law may satisfy this requirement in various ways, whatever method is chosen should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment thereon (see, Lietzow cited above, Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001, Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I and Migon v. Poland, no. 24244/94, § 79, 25 June 2002).
• EGMR, 13.02.2001 - 25116/94

  Recht auf Akteneinsicht bei der Haftprüfung (nicht nur auszugsweise Einsicht in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  While national law may satisfy this requirement in various ways, whatever method is chosen should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment thereon (see, Lietzow cited above, Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001, Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I and Migon v. Poland, no. 24244/94, § 79, 25 June 2002).
• EGMR, 25.06.2002 - 24244/94

  MIGON v. POLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2008 - 28481/03

  While national law may satisfy this requirement in various ways, whatever method is chosen should ensure that the other party will be aware that observations have been filed and will have a real opportunity to comment thereon (see, Lietzow cited above, Garcia Alva v. Germany, no. 23541/94, § 39, 13 February 2001, Schöps v. Germany, no. 25116/94, § 44, ECHR 2001-I and Migon v. Poland, no. 24244/94, § 79, 25 June 2002).

• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 30033/05

  POLONSKIY v. RUSSIA

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime, involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 02.06.2009 - 29705/05

  Recht auf Freiheit der Person und Recht auf Akteneinsicht (Recht auf ein faires …

  Der Gerichtshof ruft in diesem Zusammenhang in Erinnerung, dass er bereits in mehreren Fällen einen Verstoß gegen Artikel 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention festgestellt hat, wenn dem Verteidiger im Haftprüfungsverfahren die Akteneinsicht versagt wurde (siehe S. ./. Deutschland , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 25116/94, ECHR 2001-I ; L. ./. Deutschland , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 24479/94, ECHR 2001-I; G. A. ./. Deutschland , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 23541/94, 13. Februar 2001; und Laszkiewicz ./. Polen , Individualbeschwerde Nr. 28481/03, 15. Januar 2008).
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 13659/06

  ANANYIN v. RUSSIA

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime and involving numerous defendants the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).

 
• EGMR, 30.07.2009 - 7739/06

  SOROKIN v. RUSSIA

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime and involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 6270/06

  LYUBIMENKO v. RUSSIA

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime, involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).
• EGMR, 19.03.2009 - 13541/06

  SHKILEV v. RUSSIA

  It accepts that in cases concerning organised crime, involving numerous defendants, the process of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task, as it is necessary to obtain voluminous evidence from many sources and to determine the facts and degree of alleged responsibility of each of the co-suspects (see, mutadis mutandis, Laszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 28481/03, §§ 59 and 61, 15 January 2008).